New E! documentary series featuring TPIR

[mrbrown2195]

Yeah, I was very disappointed that the only things they covered is stuff we've known for decades: Bob had a consensual relationship with Dian, it went south, Dian sued, models wouldn't lie, they got fired; plus Price was a good ol' boys club, ripe with harassment.

There's plenty of other material to work with, including Deborah Curling, Mike Richards shenanigans, Brandi's harassment and loss of her pregnancy, the issues with Rod & Bob, etc.

I get that they want to focus it on "MeToo", but none of this is new information and is, in fact, quite stale.

[Chief Cherno]

So basically this was just them rehashing their old True Hollywood Story from back in the day but with less people involved in it than before and trying to do it in the style of Vice's "Dark Side of the Ring" (those who are big wrestling fans will know what i'm talking about). If their plan was to get more people to know, there were definitely better ways to do it than relying on a TV channel that hasn't been relevant in decades.

[Axl]

There's plenty of other material to work with, including Deborah Curling, Mike Richards shenanigans, Brandi's harassment and loss of her pregnancy, the issues with Rod & Bob, etc.

I get that they want to focus it on "MeToo", but none of this is new information and is, in fact, quite stale.

I think there are probably two factors at play in what was clearly a pretty low budget production: They want to focus on the big name that people know (Barker), and they don't want to get sued.

I haven't seen the show yet, but what I have seen from posted clips and descriptions elsewhere suggests that the only people they implicate by name are dead (Barker and the Waynes). Viewers might remember Mike Richards a little bit from the Jeopardy! fiasco, but it would take a lot more research, interviews and legal cover than they probably had the money for if they wanted to go after him. I presume Brandi is bound by an NDA from her lawsuit settlement.

[Chief Cherno]

I think there are probably two factors at play in what was clearly a pretty low budget production: They want to focus on the big name that people know (Barker), and they don't want to get sued.

I haven't seen the show yet, but what I have seen from posted clips and descriptions elsewhere suggests that the only people they implicate by name are dead (Barker and the Waynes). Viewers might remember Mike Richards a little bit from the Jeopardy! fiasco, but it would take a lot more research, interviews and legal cover than they probably had the money for if they wanted to go after him. I presume Brandi is bound by an NDA from her lawsuit settlement.

I don't think there's really much for them to worry about. Mike Richards is basically persona non grata in the industry right now. Ultimately they wanted to pick an easy target that was already talked about and didn't want to bother with doing any actual new research.

[Combs]

I think there are probably two factors at play in what was clearly a pretty low budget production: They want to focus on the big name that people know (Barker), and they don't want to get sued.

I haven't seen the show yet, but what I have seen from posted clips and descriptions elsewhere suggests that the only people they implicate by name are dead (Barker and the Waynes). Viewers might remember Mike Richards a little bit from the Jeopardy! fiasco, but it would take a lot more research, interviews and legal cover than they probably had the money for if they wanted to go after him. I presume Brandi is bound by an NDA from her lawsuit settlement.

Hopefully I won't get into trouble as I'm sure my views are vastly different from the majority here. I probably won't make any further comments. 

Barbara Hunter seemed to implicate Mark Goodson as well by claiming she was forced to wear a sexy and/or revealing outfit (can't remember what she said it was) backstage in the presence of Goodson and other male executives and staffers.

The purpose of this program is to knock Barker's popularity in the gutter. There are people that worked on TPIR during Barker's tenure that had bad experiences with him and they hate him. I imagine they also hate the fact that he's still so beloved over two and a half years after he died. They are desperate to punish him and they don't care who or what they hurt in the process. Collateral damage. Hopefully, the Pluto channel (TPIR: The Barker Era) and Buzzr won't do something drastic like pulling those shows. Most people knew this was coming eventually. (Remember the pentellit account?) I'm just surprised it wasn't closer to Barker's death.

Regarding Holly: This woman won a multi million dollar lawsuit against Barker in 2005 - and it appears, she's still miserable. Crying, sobbing on video while stating "I hate that man." So, she wins millions of dollars in 2005, Barker retires in 2007 and dies in 2023 and yet, in 2026, Holly Hallstrom still isn't happy. No, she's got an axe to grind. As do others.

No surprise they tried to blanket the show in racism too. That's an easy grenade to toss at someone you hate. You accuse them of it and they have to defend themself from the accusation. No matter what, some people will believe it regardless of evidence or lack thereof and just like that, your reputation is forever damaged. Notice how they cherry-picked moments from the show where Bob was trying to avoid certain contestants because he was afraid they were going to physically hurt him by picking him up, grabbing him etc. They tried to push the narrative that he was avoiding them because they were black.

No one made a peep about Roger Dobkowitz. Not surprising though because Roger's still alive. The dead men (Bob Barker, Phillip Wayne Rossi, Frank Wayne, Mark Goodson) were the targets. I'm sure they hated keeping quiet about Roger. I seem to recall Barbara Hunter going off about him in a post somewhere.

Funny how some described working on TPIR with Barker as the worst time of their life, but they all reacted negatively to their employment with the show ending. It was horrible, but you wanted to stay?

I don't believe that Barker was a saint, but I also don't believe that he was quite the monster certain people claim he was. I think that Holly Hallstrom, Janice Pennington, Kathleen Bradley, Paul Alter, Sherrell Paris, Linda Riegert, and Sharon Friem probably were unjustly terminated, but the allegations of racism and sexual harassment seem far fetched. I think Dian Parkinson filing that lawsuit against Bob in 1994 really damaged him emotionally. I think it hurt him and I think it angered him. Deeply. I think that anger seethed over time and it led to Bob's disdain towards others he deemed as likely to cause him trouble or harm. I certainly don't think he trusted women as much as he did before that incident. I'm tempted to blame Dian Parkinson for all of this crap as I think if she had not been flirting with Barker, that year and a half sexual relationship between her and Bob from 1989 to 1991 would not have happened and most likely, none of the other stuff would have either. She initiated that relationship (almost everyone on the show stated that) and the only reason she was interested was because of the power it would give her. That's why she was so angry when Bob broke off the relationship in 1991. Bob was to blame, for sure, but I blame Dian for starting the downfall.

[JayC]

Following the E! doc, the film and television rights for the story have been optioned: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/the-price-is-right-models-battle-bob-barker-movie-1236558051/

[Chief Cherno]

Following the E! doc, the film and television rights for the story have been optioned

Decided to do some research and found that the Gotham Group and its CEO Ellen Goldsmith-Vein had worked with Harvey Weinstein before, so it's exceptionally ironic and shows that there's something going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. Either ways its obvious that this is plan B after the E! documentary didn't do well in the ratings.

[GRWHAMMY the 2nd]

sounds less like a documentary about TPIR and more like a smear campaign against Bob Barker

[illustriousrocket]

I tried to write and deleted multiple posts about this in recent weeks. I wanted to talk about how after Bob died I said that he left a complicated legacy we would one day have to reckon with, and with Holly returning to public view that day had come. I was going to make the point that we will have to acknowledge that Bob the entertainer was a talent that connected generations of us together, but Bob as a man was not who we wanted him to be (to put it mildly) and that was a contradiction we were going to have to come to terms with.

The news of movie rights being optioned opens up a whole new can of worms I'm not sure I could connect to that post in any sort of coherent manner.

One question is, what would this movie look like, exactly? Presumably it would be told from the points of view of people who didn't sign NDAs, no? That means Holly, Linda Reigert? Janice did sign one, and Dian has disappeared, which I would think at the very least complicates matters. Janice was a major part in what happened, but if Dian chooses to not participate, she was arguably the key person other than Bob.

I mean, sure, movies can just take liberties and invent composite characters to fix those things. The Luckiest Man in America just did that with the Michael Larson story not too long ago. The problem with that when it comes to this story, and I don't know any other way to say this, is Roger. Considering his reaction to the documentary was to claim none of it happened, he will use any fictional aspects this movie depicts as a way to pry the whole story apart, especially if Dian's role as the model with whom Bob has the affair that precipitates the ultimate breakdown of it all is fictionalized.

That's without even mentioning how Roger is often named as Bob's supporter in the actual events and has stood by his claims that Bob was innocent beyond all reason. To tell this story accurately this movie would have to include him or a fictionalized version of him, and to put it bluntly, I think there are multiple possible courses in which he ends up suing over his depiction.

I just have a bad feeling nobody walks away from this having gained anything should the movie be made. The story is still niche even though its subject matter is culturally relevant, and - as it's often pointed out - Bob retired so long ago now that an entire generation has grown up with Drew, so any box office appeal is likely limited. If Roger sues over his depiction (which would be hard to entirely omit given his central role) it could drag Holly and others back into court to testify, which might be vindication for them but still starts the whole thing going again after it finally ended.

[Nick]

I'm tempted to blame Dian Parkinson for all of this crap as I think if she had not been flirting with Barker, that year and a half sexual relationship between her and Bob from 1989 to 1991 would not have happened and most likely, none of the other stuff would have either. She initiated that relationship (almost everyone on the show stated that) and the only reason she was interested was because of the power it would give her. That's why she was so angry when Bob broke off the relationship in 1991. Bob was to blame, for sure, but I blame Dian for starting the downfall.

Or, when Dian tried to seduce Barker, he could have said no because extramarital affairs, even when you're unmarried, are always a bad idea.

Barker acted fooloshly, and he got burned as a result. As far as that part of the story goes, he has only himself to blame.

[whowouldeverhurtawhammy]

Hopefully I won't get into trouble as I'm sure my views are vastly different from the majority here. I probably won't make any further comments. 

Barbara Hunter seemed to implicate Mark Goodson as well by claiming she was forced to wear a sexy and/or revealing outfit (can't remember what she said it was) backstage in the presence of Goodson and other male executives and staffers.

The purpose of this program is to knock Barker's popularity in the gutter. There are people that worked on TPIR during Barker's tenure that had bad experiences with him and they hate him. I imagine they also hate the fact that he's still so beloved over two and a half years after he died. They are desperate to punish him and they don't care who or what they hurt in the process. Collateral damage. Hopefully, the Pluto channel (TPIR: The Barker Era) and Buzzr won't do something drastic like pulling those shows. Most people knew this was coming eventually. (Remember the pentellit account?) I'm just surprised it wasn't closer to Barker's death.

Regarding Holly: This woman won a multi million dollar lawsuit against Barker in 2005 - and it appears, she's still miserable. Crying, sobbing on video while stating "I hate that man." So, she wins millions of dollars in 2005, Barker retires in 2007 and dies in 2023 and yet, in 2026, Holly Hallstrom still isn't happy. No, she's got an axe to grind. As do others.

No surprise they tried to blanket the show in racism too. That's an easy grenade to toss at someone you hate. You accuse them of it and they have to defend themself from the accusation. No matter what, some people will believe it regardless of evidence or lack thereof and just like that, your reputation is forever damaged. Notice how they cherry-picked moments from the show where Bob was trying to avoid certain contestants because he was afraid they were going to physically hurt him by picking him up, grabbing him etc. They tried to push the narrative that he was avoiding them because they were black.

No one made a peep about Roger Dobkowitz. Not surprising though because Roger's still alive. The dead men (Bob Barker, Phillip Wayne Rossi, Frank Wayne, Mark Goodson) were the targets. I'm sure they hated keeping quiet about Roger. I seem to recall Barbara Hunter going off about him in a post somewhere.

Funny how some described working on TPIR with Barker as the worst time of their life, but they all reacted negatively to their employment with the show ending. It was horrible, but you wanted to stay?

I don't believe that Barker was a saint, but I also don't believe that he was quite the monster certain people claim he was. I think that Holly Hallstrom, Janice Pennington, Kathleen Bradley, Paul Alter, Sherrell Paris, Linda Riegert, and Sharon Friem probably were unjustly terminated, but the allegations of racism and sexual harassment seem far fetched. I think Dian Parkinson filing that lawsuit against Bob in 1994 really damaged him emotionally. I think it hurt him and I think it angered him. Deeply. I think that anger seethed over time and it led to Bob's disdain towards others he deemed as likely to cause him trouble or harm. I certainly don't think he trusted women as much as he did before that incident. I'm tempted to blame Dian Parkinson for all of this crap as I think if she had not been flirting with Barker, that year and a half sexual relationship between her and Bob from 1989 to 1991 would not have happened and most likely, none of the other stuff would have either. She initiated that relationship (almost everyone on the show stated that) and the only reason she was interested was because of the power it would give her. That's why she was so angry when Bob broke off the relationship in 1991. Bob was to blame, for sure, but I blame Dian for starting the downfall.

All true...my sentiments exactly. It's time for petulant Holly to grow up.

Decided to do some research and found that the Gotham Group and its CEO Ellen Goldsmith-Vein had worked with Harvey Weinstein before, so it's exceptionally ironic and shows that there's something going on behind the scenes that we don't know about. Either ways its obvious that this is plan B after the E! documentary didn't do well in the ratings.

Now that's a twist I did not expect...the production company behind Holly's latest smear working with Harvey Weinstein? That alone should show that something shady must have been ongoing when Holly pulled this latest stunt...let alone, the fact that this "Plan B" for her has also backfired.

[illustriousrocket]

I guess I should just add some of the thoughts that would have gone into the post I initially wanted to make.

I believe the core story of the backstage culture being a sleazy good-ol-boys club with some awful attitudes about women and minorities is largely true. I'd be more shocked if, given the times, it wasn't. The one thing I have doubts about is the idea of racist attitudes bleeding out into the actual show in ways that affected its outcomes, like choosing certain contestants late. Bob, Frank Wayne and Mark Goodson were all in the business in 1958 and saw the rigging scandals first-hand, while Roger was a literal student of it. I doubt any of them, no matter what attitudes they held, would be foolish enough to gamble their livelihoods on indulging said attitudes.

As complicated as a legacy Bob left, Roger is clearly going to go down with the ship claiming nothing happened for the rest of his life. With Bob gone he and Dian are the biggest players we've never heard the perspectives of. Dian will probably stay out of the public eye, but Roger keeps talking and his claims are just absurd. I say that as someone who has respected his contributions to the industry and generally felt understanding of how bitter he has been post-firing.

His blanket denials that anything happened effectively suggest that everyone else is working together in some kind of conspiracy and I just do not buy it. The sheer number of credible-sounding allegations and the number of people making them clearly indicate something happened, but he isn't denying certain things, he's denying all of it. I don't know if that means he is just remaining completely loyal or has to deny everything because of any role he had helping Bob.

I suspect the sort of behavior in this story was very widespread in the productions contemporary to Price, but because those other shows ended, they did not continue until a time when they became socially and societally unaccepted. Gene Rayburn is one example. He was a notorious womanizer his entire life, and supposedly unpleasant to staff (according to Roger, albeit.) Watching Match Game reruns now, I find myself cringing more regularly than I'd like to admit with how handsy he gets with some of the contestants. Had he kept Match Game going as long as Price did, he would have eventually been called out for it.

EDIT: I just recalled something that may tangentially illustrate my final point.

Match Game '90 was produced while Mark Goodson was still alive, but Johnathan Goodson was effectively in charge of it. There is a somewhat notorious week of shows in which Judy Landers, sitting in seat 4, and Ross Shafer flirt relentlessly with each other, increasingly upsetting Vicki Lawrence in seat 2 until she drops profanities at Ross and cuts up one of his ties with scissors. In recent years Ross revealed that this entire thing was a stunt conceived by Johnathan Goodson to drive up the show's struggling ratings, that Vicki Lawrence was not in on it (and was thus genuinely hurt by the bullying), and that he regretted going along with it.

The fact that such a stunt could be conceived of and actually put into effect on-air with seemingly nobody saying it was a bad idea doesn't speak well to the sort of office culture it was born in. The flirting itself might have been agreed upon and staged, but the way it was used to bully an unwitting participant who had no idea it was a bit went way too far.

[Chief Cherno]

His blanket denials that anything happened effectively suggest that everyone else is working together in some kind of conspiracy and I just do not buy it. The sheer number of credible-sounding allegations and the number of people making them clearly indicate something happened, but he isn't denying certain things, he's denying all of it. I don't know if that means he is just remaining completely loyal or has to deny everything because of any role he had helping Bob.

With all of these producers and journalists getting involved i'm more inclined now to believe there is some sort of hidden agenda being pushed not just on the show but on basically all of society. I'm not sure what that narrative is yet, but I think there's some sort of subliminal messaging that's being pushed using this story as a trojan horse. I think these models are being used to push this, and once these producers and journos are done they will throw the models back to the side of the curb like a piece of trash.
I think there's one interview that has really intrigued me about this. A few years back Kathleen had an interview with Rich Fields where she claimed that she didn't hate Bob, that despite everything she still saw some good in him, and now she's saying he's this evil racist POS.

[gamesurf]

Chief Cherno is a confirmed alt of a different account that was previously banned for flagrant rule-breaking.

Carry on.

[illustriousrocket]

I mean, sure, movies can just take liberties and invent composite characters to fix those things. The Luckiest Man in America just did that with the Michael Larson story not too long ago.

I was just thinking about this point some more.

One thing that sets the Michael Larson story apart from the Price scandals is that the key players - Michael Larson, Bill Carruthers, and somewhat tangentially Peter Tomarken - are all dead. In Price's case, Bob, the Waynes and Mark Goodson are gone, but Roger and the models are still alive. Also, the tone of the subject matter is different; one turned a con artist whose biggest con worked into a lovable loser hero, the other is a deadly serious look at toxic office politics involving a famous figure.

If this movie fictionalizes the story to that extent - The Luckiest Man in America had to open with a disclaimer because it took so many liberties - I think it hurts the people it's ostensibly meant to be supporting. They fought to get the truth out for years. After what happened to them they deserve that. I think it is likely that, given the large timeframe of the real events, a movie would focus mostly on the Bob/Dian affair and its fallout, and frame anything else it covers into that context. That's not really the entire true story.

EDIT: Just to elaborate a bit on that last point...

I think the movie will, for the sake of storytelling, shorten the length of the affair so it begins at the start and falls apart with enough time left to depict at least some of the fallout afterward; if Holly is the main POV the ending would likely be her winning her settlement. Dian is a wild card whose characterization could greatly shift depending on the narrative tone. Kathleen fits as the supporting or co-protagonist alongside Holly. Janice I suspect will be placed into a smaller peripheral role. For all I've said about him, Roger probably will be present but be reduced to a supporting character with little more of a role than playing Bob's sycophant.

That creates a basic structure for a film about this story, but it doesn't really tell the whole story.